This month’s open thread for climate science topics. Note that discussions about mitigation and/or adaptation should be on the Forced Responses thread.
Let’s try and avoid a Groundhog Day scenario in the comments!
Climate science from climate scientists...
Interesting discussion.
248 – nigelj
You are correct, the email scandal was a huge hit to AGW believeability by those who didn’t already believe. And then to top that off, the several “revisions” to the data just makes the whole thing look very fishy. Conservatives didn’t do those things – AGW scientists did it to themselves! They’re not fatal errors, but they don’t look good – they’re legitimate ammo for the other side, but the truth, whatever that is, will prevail.
The word “believe” is accurate. Scientists have not adequately described the math behind AGW to the public. 99% of all who “believe” in AGW, and who vote based on that “belief”, could not provide you 2 facts about the basic science of AGW. Conservatives know that science is not based on “belief” but on evidence, math, etc.
Mr. Nudds, and many others above, love to spew insults about how irrational deniers and conservatives are. This is nothing but unhinged leftist hate speech. It’s not new. It’s exactly why Trump won – people in the USA are sick of the leftist race baiting, identity politics, etc, etc. The unhinged leftist media in the USA does the same thing 24/7/365. How’s that working out for them?
Americans are going to resist being bossed around by government panels, the UN, etc. We are a sovereign nation forged from a wilderness after defeating the army of our oppressors back in the late 1700s. We will not take orders from the IPCC the UN or anyone else. BUT if AGW is real, we will figure it out and we will take action – in fact we are already doing so. The annointed one, Obama, didn’t address AGW when he had a D house and senate in his first 2 years because he really didn’t care that much about it I guess, eh?
China has rapid growth in renewables because they are building a new modern nation. Before the 80s most lived in abject poverty. It’s easier and cheaper to build a new RE grid than to modify an existing grid based on FFs.
There is reason to be optimistic for those above who espouse simple living, low carbon foot print, etc. The reason is this: 80% of the world lives on less than $10/day, 50% live on less than $2.50 per day – and a good chunk of the Chinese population are probably in there as well. There aren’t you all pumped up by that optimistic data?
Sources:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/china-is-still-really-poor/
1:20 AM pacific 2/27/2018
Interesting and thought-provoking: https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/hurricanes-jose-and-maria-slowed-down-the-gulf-stream
Maybe a new feedback mechanism in this process?
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/06/06/could-climate-change-shut-down-the-gulf-stream/
Losing as little as 3% more of the Amazon, whether due to cl8mate or human destruction, may mean the end of the Amazon.
I don’t know how we recover from that.
https://www.sciencealert.com/deforestation-amazon-collapse-savannah-imminent
Scott Nudds:
You’re implying it was the scientific community’s responsibility to succeed. Why do you think that?
Oh dear. What a shame.
I see DeSmogUK are reporting that denialists are losing one of their favourite vehicles for getting their poisoned bullshit published – ‘Energy & Environment’ which was a favourite for them perhaps due to the journal having ““effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line” (according to one of our hosts Gavin Schmidt).
CarbonBrief reported back in 2011 that the largest group of the alleged 900-plus papers demonstrating AGW-denial/scepticism were published in ‘Energy & Environment’. But now under new management, the journal appears to be cleaning its act up.
Mind, denialists don’t need actual denialist-AGW literature to make their bold claims. According to gobshite-site NoTricksZone, there were 500 AGW-denialist papers published in 2016 alone. The 2017 total they came up with was not far below that level and already there has been – Shock! Horror!! – 97 already this year. Golly!!!
Of course, in the main the papers these jokers cite are no such thing but just have the likes of a graphic or two that can be presented as being supportive of AGW-denial (like, for instance Rydval et al (2016) figure 6b which apparently shows no net warming in Scotland since “mid or late 20th century”, a very odd choice of data source given the Met Office has weather station coverage working throughout this period – so no need that I can see to rely on tree-ring data.
253 Killian, the amazon is quite a concern for sure. But the “pseudo-journalist” CHELSEA GOHD and her Editor (if there is one for this daft website) deserves a right kick up the ass. I cannot stand liars. If she worked for me I’d fire her for less than this garbage.
Title: New Study Shows Just How Close …….. etc “But according to a new study published in the journal Science Advances, they may be reaching a crisis point.”
The actual ref to http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaat2340 states clearly — “Editorial – Amazon Tipping Point” It’s one page long with only 2 refs one from 1979 and another from 2007. It’s a cheap nothing article.
Therefore it’s clear that that is not a Study mate, it is a bloody cheap Op-Ed article by Lovejoy and Nobre that anyone (me included), could have punch out in less than 30 minutes, along with the typesetting done by ScienceMag. (smile)
So much for AAAS, in particular their Science Advances magazine and Eureka Alert! mag., being a leading light in “science communication, journalism, and outreach” in the world. Their Science Advances magazine Editor should be Fired too for crap like this. Just my humble opinion of course.
And people wonder why many in the public have doubts about the credibility of “science” from time to time. Look at the losers involved in this example.
And imho AAAS is little more than another pseudo ‘think tank’ a not-for profit money making tax exempt slush fund and over-paid “job creation for the boys” enterprise where “science” is but it’s chosen version of Widgets.
Now this does not mean I do not get the ‘science and truth’ that this article points to about the Amazon. But this effort is cheap journalism and hand waving garbage imho and nothing like what should be coming out from a a scientific peer-review publisher that provides “studies” for the world to read and learn from.
Ka-Ching, yes!!! ;-)
Can anyone read a Balance Sheet and understand income and expenses, and what those numbers can actually tell you? http://annualreport.aaas.org/2016-financials/
Pigs noses in a trough overflowing with funds from by the tax payers, subscriptions, and donations. There are tens of thousands of such “Orgs” floating around …. the New Age Version of Churches in the Middle Ages.
(smile)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/193401-if-not-us-then-who-if-not-now-then-when
John E. Lewis is the nom de plume of one of the Eastern Shore’s most passionate native sons. A love for the land of his youth comes through with great sincerity in his numerous writings. He credits his wisdom, faith and courage of his extended family for much of his adult success.
Mr. Lewis is an international, award-winning author with eight books and countless short stories and articles to his credit. After graduating from Cambridge University, and a stint as an intelligence officer in the Air Force, he worked as a field archaeologist in the Near East and Central America.
For the past eighteen years, Mr. Lewis has been a publisher of scholarly books with over 400 bearing imprints. He is now the president of an American publishing company and a consultant to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC.
Mr. Know It All @251
“And then to top that off, the several “revisions” to the data just makes the whole thing look very fishy.”
The revisions to the global temperature data are to correct known technical issues, and they adjust global temperatures DOWN. This is hardly food for suspicions about scientists. The fact that you have been told this before makes me conclude you are being deliberately difficult.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
” Conservatives didn’t do those things – AGW scientists did it to themselves!”
Are you seriously trying to tell me there are no conservative scientists?
“Scientists have not adequately described the math behind AGW to the public. ”
Since when do the general public understand advanced differential equations on climate systems? I dont have the specialist knowledge myself its a very specialist area. Scientists have proven their case to the science community with over 90% agreement between climate scientists, and scientists have explained the important issues very adequately to the public.
“99% of all who “believe” in AGW, and who vote based on that “belief”, could not provide you 2 facts about the basic science of AGW.
You are being demeaning to the general public. However I certainly think you wouldnt know two facts.
Re Tribalism:
DO pay attention, children. You are getting this wrong. Tribalism does not much apply in *any* sense to what we are discussing. Authoritarianism describes the Republican Party and its minions much more accurately. That is, the cognitive style of the Conservative is wired to accept authority and follow it without question. Yes, the same can occur on the Left – but the Russian form of Communism was the furthest thing from the left, so let’s use progressive and conservative rather than left and right. Communism as practiced thus far is a right/conservative, authoritarian form, not an egalitarian/democratic form.
Still, Authoritarian thinking DOES occur on both ends of the spectrum, but is more pronounced, and due to the nature of the ideology, far more dangerous. Zealotry can be found on both ends.
It is the characteristic of blind adherence to Authority that creates the problem we see in politics. People are not bound by an identity, a sense of physical or psychological tribe, so much as willing to follow whomever does sound like them. Are there elements of “tribalism?” Meh… sure. But that is not the primary driver. People have a multiplicity of tribes that overlap. There is no one “tribe,” so this poorly explains the phenomenon of blind political allegiance. There are, after all, wide differences within political parties that would lead to fragmentation except this strong need to follow, and to win.
Basically, I think you are wasting your time on this line of conversation and failing to apply Occam’s.
But I don’t much care about this topic, so… carry on.
Mr KIA @251
And you prove my point. You complain bitterly about being accused of being irrational and stubborn, and you claim the science has not been well enough explained. But the science has been explained to you well enough numerous times, and the maths has been pointed out by people like BPL, but you still don’t like it and wont accept it. This is because you are driven by irrational, tribal political motives and fears, – and you immediately prove this with blather about the world being run by the United Nations!
There’s a difference between countries entering into agreements brokered by the UN and giving up sovereignty to the UN.I would not want my country being ruled by the UN, but I cannot for the life of me see harm in international voluntary trade agreements, the WTO, The WHO, The Paris Accord, etc and these organisations do a lot of good if you take the trouble to read about, it rather than reading crap on echo chamber politically driven conspiracy theory websites.
Are the UN perfect? Of course not, but people like you let perfection become the enemy of the good, yet at the same time you make excuses for complete fools like the inhabitants of the current White House who are very plainly far from perfect. What is that, if it’s not irrationality?
(mike maybe busy so fwiw latest ESRL CO2 readings)
As is more usual at this time of year, the CO2 growth rate has eased below overall yearly rates. March readings typically increases a little more, but it is April when things take a leap upward.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mid-February 2018
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html
2017 2 5-11th 406.03
2017 2 12-18th 405.91
2017 2 19-26th 406.91
Period Avg. 406.28 ppm
In 2018
February 26: 409.02 ppm
February 25: 408.90 ppm
Floating around +2.00 ppm on last year
February 24: 408.77 ppm
February 23: 408.57 ppm
February 22: 408.29 ppm
February 21: 408.47 ppm
February 20: 408.36 ppm
February 19: 408.44 ppm
February 18: 408.46 ppm
Week beginning on February 18, 2018: 408.48 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.73 ppm +1.75
Despite there being record high winter temperatures up in the high Arctic, winter still prevails & the bits that sit at the edge of the Sea Ice are presumably on average not so anomalous as those being reported in the press (eg here) because Sea Ice Extent is still showing a bit of growth. As of 27th Feb, the 2018 JAXA Arctic Sea Ice Extent had grown to within 200,000sq km of the record for lowest maximum daily SIE (set last year). At this point in the year, 2017 still had a further 40,000sq km SIE to gain in setting the record which maximumed on 6th March. This year so far has been less icy than any other year on record (The anomaly graph of JAXA SIE (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’) doesn’t show the point of maximum SIE but does better allow comparison between the different years,) and the potential time for a winter maximum is now upon us.
On average the day of daily maximum arrives about 10 days later than it did at the start of the period of satellite record. Over recent years it has been averaging out at 9th March but with a lot of variability, having been as early as late-February (2007 23rd February, 2015 15th, 2016 29th) or as late as late-March (2003 21st March, 2010 31st, 2014 20th).
All-in-all, the temperatures are more exceptional than the expected new SIE daily record. DMI +80ºN shows the temperature reaching -9ºC on 24th Feb, a date when the climatology (1958-2002) gives -31ºC. (Previously the earliest a temperature of -9ºC has appeared on the DMI +80ºN was in mid-April with a couple more years seeing it before the end of April. The climatology gives 10th May.)
And the levels of SIE through the coming melt season will probably reflect those record temperatures. So maybe we can look forward to a melt season as exceptional as the early months of the 2016 melt.
#255–
All together, now!
“Awwwww…”
KIA revives the old Climategate crap: “the email scandal was a huge hit to AGW believeability by those who didn’t already believe.”
Here’s what really happened:
http://bartonlevenson.com/Climategate.html
But I’m sure KIA will just wait a while and then trot it out again, since he has the ethics of a jackal.
> Energy & Environment
I wonder if the new peer review process will look at any of the past publications.
Or if any new submissions citing the prior E’n’E publications will spur some re-reviewing.
If so some retractions should be coming.
#262 says: “…winter still prevails & the bits that sit at the edge of the Sea Ice are presumably on average not so anomalous as those being reported in the press (eg here) because Sea Ice Extent is still showing a bit of growth.
That news report mentions ASI twice:
Here:
“While average temperatures have increased by about 1C, the warming at the pole – closer to 3C – is melting the ice mass. According to Nasa, Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.2% per decade, leaving more open water and higher temperatures.”
That comment has nothing to do with the current very high temp anomaly. It’s a long term historical record of the “region” and where the link to Nasa’s Sept minimum info doesn’t even work.
And then here by Michael Mann being quoted:
“And those initial warming events can trigger even greater warming because of the ‘feedback loops’ associated with the melting of ice and the potential release of methane (a very strong greenhouse gas).”
As such, to say that: “… not so anomalous as those being reported in the press (eg here)” is false, an untrue statement, and misrepresentation of that “news report”.
That comment is not accurate (whether or not the news report itself was accurate or not.)
The report made no mention whatsoever about the bits that sit at the edge of the Sea Ice nor any other BITS of Sea Ice in the present.
The report made no mention whatsoever about any anomalous BITS either except the above obvious generality over the long term… and the news report, including quotes by scientists, did not intimate anything along the line of Sea Ice Extent growth or even a lack of growth.
The facts are the facts. The article addressed the current ‘surprise’ (sic) in the very high unprecedented high arctic region temperatures in the middle of winter … not ASIE. This is obvious, or should be.